Language and the media.

Wed, 4 Mar 2009
1 min read
Add Comment

The whole comparison to water usage is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The standard telecom contract for data services has been based on bandwidth provided since the invention of data circuits. Indeed, the ISP’s price their services based on the bandwidth to which one subscribes. If I have subscribed for an 8Mb/sec service, how can I be a “bandwidth hog” for using 8Mb/sec of bandwidth? I paid for it, and I have the right to use it.

— Waleed Hanafi, Singapore – ISP’s to customers – “You are evil”

It’s an old article but I think it’s a very good example about how language and the media have the power to shape public opinion, and the media having a responsibility to report the news in an objective way. But if that doesn’t happen, then readers have to develop media literacy and critical thinking skills in order to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of information and data processing.

Cute archaic phrase of the day.

Thu, 26 Feb 2009
1 min read
2 Comments

put up (verb phrase)
to accommodate; lodge.
e.g. Where are you putting up now?

Someone asked me this today, and it was all I could do to stop myself from smiling. Why? Because I was reminded of a discussion some of us had during a workshopping session a month or so back, about ‘archaic’ phrases that people from our parents’ generation use, and how extremely out the place the phrases are. But because they’re so incongruent especially in our age, they’re kinda cute, in a retro sort of way. Other examples of cute archaic phrases: taking your breakfast/lunch/dinner in lieu of eating.

Any other examples you can think of?

Texting and language acquisition/use.

Tue, 24 Feb 2009
1 min read
Add Comment
  1. Your little texting runt may not be illiterate. (via Lucas Ho)
  2. 2b or not 2b: David Crystal on why texting is good for language. (A link I found some time ago)

I’ve always believed we shouldn’t be so quick to decry text messaging and immediately linking the use of abbreviations in texting to language depreciation.

My argument would run somewhere along the lines that the shortened forms of the words are a form of simplification – duh – and code-switching – I won’t use this form of language in formal letters, and people who do that aren’t stupid, they just haven’t been as quick to realise what is appropriate and what isn’t. Or maybe they have different perceptions of appropriateness.

Above all, we must remember that language has evolved over time, and will continue to evolve, regardless of whether you like it or not. The best advice I can give: move along with the times, people.